From my memory the original intent of EMBED was to include HTML documents within HTML documents (which MS implement ed as IFRAME and was subsequently adopted by everyone), the patent referred to by Eolas was granted in 1998 which was after the use of EMBED in HTML 3.0 (or was it 2.0 I can't remember).

Given my absolute distaste of the misuse of patents in application to software, I'm still perplexed how the court arrived at the idea that MS infringed anything that was reasonable. There are numerous examples of hyperlinked documents composed of many discrete components being launched or executed, the smokescreen of whether its across a network or not should have been dismissed by MS's lawyers.

Just to make clear why it is a smokescreen...

It does not matter to the browser where the embedded object resides, whether its locally on the machine or on some remote machine connected in some way. The behaviour of EMBED is precisely the same, the means by which it is found and delivered may differ but the differences are in existing protocols not in any pseudo-invention.

The EOLAS patent depends upon a minimum of two machines, a client machine and a server machine connected in some way, the patent only makes reference to the Internet. On this basis alone the suit should have failed.

Simon Lucy
Monday, September 1, 2003

This is once again ignorance on the patent office who made it and the Judge who ruled. There's really no cure for ignorance, yet. But I do suspect that when one is made, it'll make its owners very, very rich.

What really disgusts me is that these small-time companies no one has ever heard of crops up AFTER the thing's a big success; the reason for this is obvious: they're just after the bucks. And who better to supply them than Microsoft's $50 billion change in the bank.

People whine about Microsoft allegedly crushing the competition, but with lawyers, courts/judges and patent offices around that sue, order and grant - respectively - then I really don't think they have anything to fear.

Mickey Petersen
Monday, September 1, 2003

I'm going to patent the process of patenting trivial stuff!

*- This joke must be made in all patent discussions

Anonymous Cowboy
Monday, September 1, 2003

I will patent redundant patenting.

Mickey Petersen
Monday, September 1, 2003

Recently I was made aware that there was a patent application that just went up this year for something that I and at least 15 others have been doing for years. On top of this, the technique is described in books and journals as far back as the 1960s, and arguable, back to the 1600s, though without implementation on that really old stuff.

Anyway, I tried to find out how to make the patent examiner aware of this prior art so as to save everybody a lot of trouble.

The patent office informed me that *I* have to pay a fee if I want to challenge an application!!!

So, see, it's not just that the patent examiners don't do a thorough job, it's that they are not allowed to recieve relevant information even if they wanted to!